Taxonomic Changes for Human and Animal Viruses, 2018 to 2020

Serologic and Molecular Prevalence of Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Virus Among Poultry in the Republic of Korea

Background: Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging infectious disease caused by Dabie bandavirus, which belongs to the genus Bandavirus, family Phenuiviridae, and order Bunyavirales. It has been found in tick species, various animals, and humans. The aim of this study was to detect RNA of antigens and antibodies against SFTS virus (SFTSV) among poultry such as chickens, ducks, and wild geese from five provinces in the Republic of Korea (ROK). Materials and Methods: A one-step reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR and nested PCR were performed after viral RNA extraction. The phylogenetic tree was constructed after sequencing data were analyzed and aligned. An indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a neutralization test (NT) were performed to test for IgG antibodies of SFTSV. Results: Of a total of 606 poultry serum samples collected, 568 and 539 serum samples were used to perform ELISA and NT, respectively. Of a total of 606 serum samples tested by RT-PCR targeting the S segment, 15 (2.5%) were positive for SFTSV. From the 15 positive serum samples for the SFTSV antigen, three from chickens, three from ducks, and one from wild geese were classified as genotype B-2; one from chickens was classified as genotype B-3; and three from chickens and four from wild geese were classified as genotype D. Of the 568 serum samples tested by ELISA, 83 (28.0%) from chickens, 81 (32.9%) from ducks, and 8 (30.8%) from wild geese were seropositive. Of the 539 serum samples for which an NT was performed, 113 (38.6%) from chickens and 75 (30.5%) from ducks were positive for SFTSV antibodies. Conclusions: The results of this study provide useful information regarding detection of SFTSV RNA and antibodies among poultry and the possibility of SFTSV transmission in various types of poultry, including chickens, ducks, and wild geese, in the ROK.

An Update on Novel Taxa and Revised Taxonomic Status of Bacteria Isolated from Domestic Animals Described in 2018 to 2021

Novel bacterial taxonomy and nomenclature revisions can have significant impacts on clinical practice, disease epidemiology, and veterinary microbiology laboratory operations. Expansion of research on the microbiota of humans, animals, and insects has significant potential impacts on the taxonomy of organisms of clinical interest. Implications of taxonomic changes may be especially important when considering zoonotic diseases. Here, we address novel taxonomy and nomenclature revisions of veterinary significance. Noteworthy discussion centers around descriptions of novel mastitis pathogens in Streptococcaceae, Staphylococcaceae, and Actinomycetaceae; bovine reproductive tract pathogens in Corynebacteriaceae; novel members of Mannheimia spp., Leptospira spp., and Mycobacterium spp.; the transfer of Ochrobactrum spp. to Brucella spp.; and revisions to the genus Mycoplasma.

Taxonomic Changes for Human Viruses, 2020 to 2022

The classification of viruses remains relevant to several disciplines, including clinical virology. Since the original publication of this review in 2019, many known viruses have undergone taxonomic revisions, and several novel human and animal viruses have been described. Here, we provide an update to our previous reviews of taxonomic changes for disease-causing viruses of humans, covering changes that occurred between 2020 and 2022. As with previous editions, this update was informed by recent advances in virus taxonomy made by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses; the changes and additions noted herein are not all-inclusive.

Update on Accepted Novel Bacterial Isolates Derived from Human Clinical Specimens and Taxonomic Revisions Published in 2020 and 2021

A number of factors, including microbiome analyses and the increased utilization of whole-genome sequencing in the clinical microbiology laboratory, has contributed to the explosion of novel prokaryotic species discovery, as well as bacterial taxonomy revision. This review attempts to summarize such changes relative to human clinical specimens that occurred in 2020 and 2021, per primary publication in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology or acceptance on Validation Lists published by the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. Of particular significance among valid and effectively published taxa within the past 2 years were novel Corynebacterium spp., coagulase-positive staphylococci, Pandoraea spp., and members of family Yersiniaceae. Noteworthy taxonomic revisions include those within the Bacillus and Lactobacillus genera, family Staphylococcaceae (including unifications of subspecies designations to species level taxa), Elizabethkingia spp., and former members of Clostridium spp. and Bacteroides spp. Revisions within the Brucella genus have the potential to cause deleterious effects unless the relevance of such changes is properly communicated by microbiologists to stakeholders in clinical practice, infection prevention, and public health.

Fungal Nomenclature: Managing Change is the Name of the Game

Fungal species have undergone and continue to undergo significant nomenclatural change, primarily due to the abandonment of dual species nomenclature in 2013 and the widespread application of molecular technologies in taxonomy allowing correction of past classification errors. These have effected numerous name changes concerning medically important species, but by far the group causing most concern are the Candida yeasts. Among common species, Candida krusei, Candida glabrata, Candida guilliermondii, Candida lusitaniae, and Candida rugosa have been changed to Pichia kudriavzevii, Nakaseomyces glabrata, Meyerozyma guilliermondii, Clavispora lusitaniae, and Diutina rugosa, respectively. There are currently no guidelines for microbiology laboratories on implementing changes, and there is ongoing concern that clinicians will dismiss or misinterpret laboratory reports using unfamiliar species names. Here, we have outlined the rationale for name changes across the major groups of clinically important fungi and have provided practical recommendations for managing change.

Attitudes of Australasian Clinicians and Laboratory Staff to Changing Fungal Nomenclature: Has Mycological Correctness Really Gone Mad?

Fungal nomenclature changes have been a regular occurrence in recent years, eliciting heated debate on whether such changes will confuse clinicians and harm patients. We conducted surveys of Australasian laboratory staff and clinicians to assess attitudes, practices, and concerns regarding nomenclatural change. The majority of respondents to both surveys were aware of fungal nomenclatural changes (93.5% laboratories, 79.7% clinicians); 72.8% of laboratories had already implemented nomenclature changes, and 68.7% of clinicians recalled receiving at least one laboratory report utilizing updated fungal nomenclature. The vast majority of clinicians (94%) both within and outside of infection specialties supported laboratories reporting updated species names with inclusion of the previous species name. The importance of including the previous name on reports was demonstrated by 73.3% of clinicians viewing “Nakaseomyces glabrata (formerly Candida glabrata)” as clinically significant, versus only 38.2% viewing “Pichia kudriavzeveii” as significant in the absence of its former name. When asked about reporting practices, 73.9% of laboratories would report a Candida krusei isolate as “Pichia kudriavzeveii (formerly Candida krusei),” with the rest reporting as “Candida krusei” (21.7%) or “Pichia kudriavzeveii” (1.1%) without further explanation. Laboratory concerns included clinicians being confused by reports, commonly used identification platforms continuing to use superseded species names, education of staff, and delays in updating species codes in laboratory information systems. Adopting fungal name changes appears to be well supported by laboratories and clinicians in Australia and New Zealand, and can be achieved safely and unambiguously provided the former name is included on reports.

IMPORTANCE Recent changes in fungal species names have been contentious, eliciting heated debate on social media. Despite available recommendations on adapting to the changes, concerns include clinicians dismissing pathogens as contaminants with patient harm as a result, and disruption of the literature. Such concerns are understandable, but are not supported by evidence and may represent a vocal minority. This survey of Australasian laboratories and clinicians assesses attitudes and practices relating to changes in fungal nomenclature and found that there is overwhelming support for adopting nomenclature changes.